This thread really should be strictly a debate about the evidence for evolution. People know what science is, they see it in their everyday life. They know it works. We don't need to get into these esoterical discussions about what is science, what is knowledge, etc. There are many scientific advancements which have led to various kinds of technology that we take for granted. Everyone here believes in science and what it can provide for mankind. The Theory of Evolution is just another result of that same process that has brought us so much. If you think that the ToE lacks sufficient evidence, we can discuss that evidence, but to attempt to cast doubt on the entire scientific process is quite silly, given that so much of what we take for granted in our lives (the computer sitting in front of you?) are a result of that process, and to deny that is to deny reality and existence, which is a pointless discussion.

if this thread was reduced to being solely about science, then what would be the point of it being on an Orthodox forum?

I'm asking some very simple, easy questions. Either you are dodging them or you simply don't understand them.

No, you are asking some interesting philosophical and rhetorical questions -- they are just not the kinds of questions that science has any desire to answer.

Yet it depends on how you answer them that determines what "science" is or whether there can be any science at all. Those are your presuppositions which you say don't exist. If you can't examine the presuppositions then any claim to the truth of your science is empty.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

This thread really should be strictly a debate about the evidence for evolution. People know what science is, they see it in their everyday life. They know it works. We don't need to get into these esoterical discussions about what is science, what is knowledge, etc. There are many scientific advancements which have led to various kinds of technology that we take for granted. Everyone here believes in science and what it can provide for mankind. The Theory of Evolution is just another result of that same process that has brought us so much. If you think that the ToE lacks sufficient evidence, we can discuss that evidence, but to attempt to cast doubt on the entire scientific process is quite silly, given that so much of what we take for granted in our lives (the computer sitting in front of you?) are a result of that process, and to deny that is to deny reality and existence, which is a pointless discussion.

if this thread was reduced to being solely about science, then what would be the point of it being on an Orthodox forum?

So Orthodox people can learn about and discuss the evidence for evolution, what else?

I'm asking some very simple, easy questions. Either you are dodging them or you simply don't understand them.

No, you are asking some interesting philosophical and rhetorical questions -- they are just not the kinds of questions that science has any desire to answer.

Yet it depends on how you answer them that determines what "science" is or whether there can be any science at all. Those are your presuppositions which you say don't exist. If you can't examine the presuppositions then any claim to the truth of your science is empty.

One does not need to know the presupposition of science to realize that it works and benefits mankind.

OK, I think I see where you're coming from: science is and has always been materialistic in essence.

By conceding this point, which is not borne out in the history of philosophy, you are essentially accepting dualism. And that is the chief problem I see with both the Darwinists and creationists here- they accept the same basic, non-Christian cosmology and so these discussions go nowhere.

I don't see how the ToE must accept any particular type of cosmology, nor does it require strict materialism, it doesn't deal with the nature of matter. Needless to say, this theory has already borne fruit which has assisted research in the medical field tremendously, which ultimately improves the quality of life for mankind. This is the goal, which you asked about earlier.

so youre saying, if we didnt tell stories about common descent then we wouldnt be able to make those medicinal advances? I dont understand why grand tales of the ancient past are necessary to study biology and medicine in the present ...

OK, I think I see where you're coming from: science is and has always been materialistic in essence.

By conceding this point, which is not borne out in the history of philosophy, you are essentially accepting dualism. And that is the chief problem I see with both the Darwinists and creationists here- they accept the same basic, non-Christian cosmology and so these discussions go nowhere.

I don't see how the ToE must accept any particular type of cosmology, nor does it require strict materialism, it doesn't deal with the nature of matter.

Not directly, but the theory is arrived at based on a methodology ("modern science") which assumes strict dualism or materialism. That is, unless you have found some spiritual proofs of the theory which you would like to share with us.

Quote

Needless to say, this theory has already borne fruit which has assisted research in the medical field tremendously, which ultimately improves the quality of life for mankind. This is the goal, which you asked about earlier.

The pagan astrologers also did a good service to mankind by giving us calendars. Just because I use their calendar doesn't mean I accept uncritically all their theories about the heavens.

The true goal of all wisdom is not the material benefit of mankind but the contemplation of spiritual realities and the glorification of the Creator. That's what's been lost in the shuffle here.

« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 10:11:51 PM by Iconodule »

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

This thread really should be strictly a debate about the evidence for evolution. People know what science is, they see it in their everyday life. They know it works. We don't need to get into these esoterical discussions about what is science, what is knowledge, etc. There are many scientific advancements which have led to various kinds of technology that we take for granted. Everyone here believes in science and what it can provide for mankind. The Theory of Evolution is just another result of that same process that has brought us so much. If you think that the ToE lacks sufficient evidence, we can discuss that evidence, but to attempt to cast doubt on the entire scientific process is quite silly, given that so much of what we take for granted in our lives (the computer sitting in front of you?) are a result of that process, and to deny that is to deny reality and existence, which is a pointless discussion.

if this thread was reduced to being solely about science, then what would be the point of it being on an Orthodox forum?

So Orthodox people can learn about and discuss the evidence for evolution, what else?

theres plenty of other sites for secular pursuits. the OP of this thread is about Scripture.

OK, I think I see where you're coming from: science is and has always been materialistic in essence.

By conceding this point, which is not borne out in the history of philosophy, you are essentially accepting dualism. And that is the chief problem I see with both the Darwinists and creationists here- they accept the same basic, non-Christian cosmology and so these discussions go nowhere.

I don't see how the ToE must accept any particular type of cosmology, nor does it require strict materialism, it doesn't deal with the nature of matter. Needless to say, this theory has already borne fruit which has assisted research in the medical field tremendously, which ultimately improves the quality of life for mankind. This is the goal, which you asked about earlier.

so youre saying, if we didnt tell stories about common descent then we wouldnt be able to make those medicinal advances? I dont understand why grand tales of the ancient past are necessary to study biology and medicine in the present ...

Here's a couple examples of how modern evolutionary biology has advanced medicinal research:

I'm asking some very simple, easy questions. Either you are dodging them or you simply don't understand them.

No, you are asking some interesting philosophical and rhetorical questions -- they are just not the kinds of questions that science has any desire to answer.

Yet it depends on how you answer them that determines what "science" is or whether there can be any science at all. Those are your presuppositions which you say don't exist. If you can't examine the presuppositions then any claim to the truth of your science is empty.

One does not need to know the presupposition of science to realize that it works and benefits mankind.

In other words, the ends justify the means. Good thinking- have you tried black magic? I've heard it can do wonders for your lovelife and bank account. As for the benefits of "science", I wonder how nuclear weapons or chemical spills are benefiting mankind. Nevermind that. You're right, materially we are very well off (well, some of us are) thanks to new technologies. If material well-being were the criterion of truth, then modern science would be my religion.

But the purpose of true natural philosophy is not making us live longer or creating neat gadgets (as much as I like these things)- like all wisdom, its purpose is to lift us up to the contemplation of heavenly realities and the glorification of God.

As St. Nikolai said: "'... whoever reads the natural without knowing the spiritual content and significance of what he has read, reads death, sees death, appropriates death." No wonder we arrived at this miserable, death-based theory of evolution by natural selection.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

OK, I think I see where you're coming from: science is and has always been materialistic in essence.

By conceding this point, which is not borne out in the history of philosophy, you are essentially accepting dualism. And that is the chief problem I see with both the Darwinists and creationists here- they accept the same basic, non-Christian cosmology and so these discussions go nowhere.

I don't see how the ToE must accept any particular type of cosmology, nor does it require strict materialism, it doesn't deal with the nature of matter. Needless to say, this theory has already borne fruit which has assisted research in the medical field tremendously, which ultimately improves the quality of life for mankind. This is the goal, which you asked about earlier.

so youre saying, if we didnt tell stories about common descent then we wouldnt be able to make those medicinal advances? I dont understand why grand tales of the ancient past are necessary to study biology and medicine in the present ...

Here's a couple examples of how modern evolutionary biology has advanced medicinal research:

which one of those advances was obtained through stories about the past rather than studies and experiments of the present? at least in the first link, i dont see where millions or billions of years ago factors in at all.

I'm asking some very simple, easy questions. Either you are dodging them or you simply don't understand them.

No, you are asking some interesting philosophical and rhetorical questions -- they are just not the kinds of questions that science has any desire to answer.

Yet it depends on how you answer them that determines what "science" is or whether there can be any science at all. Those are your presuppositions which you say don't exist. If you can't examine the presuppositions then any claim to the truth of your science is empty.

One does not need to know the presupposition of science to realize that it works and benefits mankind.

In other words, the ends justify the means. Good thinking- have you tried black magic? I've heard it can do wonders for your lovelife and bank account. As for the benefits of "science", I wonder how nuclear weapons or chemical spills are benefiting mankind. Nevermind that. You're right, materially we are very well off (well, some of us are) thanks to new technologies. If material well-being were the criterion of truth, then modern science would be my religion.

But the purpose of true natural philosophy is not making us live longer or creating neat gadgets (as much as I like these things)- like all wisdom, its purpose is to lift us up to the contemplation of heavenly realities and the glorification of God.

As St. Nikolai said: "'... whoever reads the natural without knowing the spiritual content and significance of what he has read, reads death, sees death, appropriates death." No wonder we arrived at this miserable, death-based theory of evolution by natural selection.

dont you know - St. Nikolai wasnt a scientist duuuh! (although he was incredibly educated, i think he may have studied science ...)

I'm asking some very simple, easy questions. Either you are dodging them or you simply don't understand them.

No, you are asking some interesting philosophical and rhetorical questions -- they are just not the kinds of questions that science has any desire to answer.

Yet it depends on how you answer them that determines what "science" is or whether there can be any science at all. Those are your presuppositions which you say don't exist. If you can't examine the presuppositions then any claim to the truth of your science is empty.

One does not need to know the presupposition of science to realize that it works and benefits mankind.

In other words, the ends justify the means. Good thinking- have you tried black magic? I've heard it can do wonders for your lovelife and bank account. As for the benefits of "science", I wonder how nuclear weapons or chemical spills are benefiting mankind. Nevermind that. You're right, materially we are very well off (well, some of us are) thanks to new technologies. If material well-being were the criterion of truth, then modern science would be my religion.

But the purpose of true natural philosophy is not making us live longer or creating neat gadgets (as much as I like these things)- like all wisdom, its purpose is to lift us up to the contemplation of heavenly realities and the glorification of God.

As St. Nikolai said: "'... whoever reads the natural without knowing the spiritual content and significance of what he has read, reads death, sees death, appropriates death." No wonder we arrived at this miserable, death-based theory of evolution by natural selection.

What is the means in this case, except for honest, objective inquiry? How could that be construed as bad or wrong, in the eyes of the Creator, or others? Scientists seek to objectively understand the world around us, and make it a better place for everyone, using the tools they have available to them; nature, and objective inquiry.

Unfortunately for many people, the type of natural philosophy which you speak of tends to be be very subjective and lead a person down a completely different path than one who is sitting next to them pursuing the same type of 'truth'. What is the criteria for true and false natural philosophy which seeks to draw us nearer to God? Different methods appear to work for different people. Until the distinctive criteria is defined which separates true from false, which separates good from bad, people will continue to forge their own paths seeking the divine, and there will be no ultimate resolution towards spiritual truth for humanity as a whole.

Yet, this 'death based theory' may end up saving many lives because of it.

I'm asking some very simple, easy questions. Either you are dodging them or you simply don't understand them.

No, you are asking some interesting philosophical and rhetorical questions -- they are just not the kinds of questions that science has any desire to answer.

Yet it depends on how you answer them that determines what "science" is or whether there can be any science at all. Those are your presuppositions which you say don't exist. If you can't examine the presuppositions then any claim to the truth of your science is empty.

One does not need to know the presupposition of science to realize that it works and benefits mankind.

In other words, the ends justify the means. Good thinking- have you tried black magic? I've heard it can do wonders for your lovelife and bank account. As for the benefits of "science", I wonder how nuclear weapons or chemical spills are benefiting mankind. Nevermind that. You're right, materially we are very well off (well, some of us are) thanks to new technologies. If material well-being were the criterion of truth, then modern science would be my religion.

But the purpose of true natural philosophy is not making us live longer or creating neat gadgets (as much as I like these things)- like all wisdom, its purpose is to lift us up to the contemplation of heavenly realities and the glorification of God.

As St. Nikolai said: "'... whoever reads the natural without knowing the spiritual content and significance of what he has read, reads death, sees death, appropriates death." No wonder we arrived at this miserable, death-based theory of evolution by natural selection.

What is the means in this case, except for honest, objective inquiry? How could that be construed as bad or wrong, in the eyes of the Creator, or others? Scientists seek to objectively understand the world around us, and make it a better place for everyone, using the tools they have available to them; nature, and objective inquiry.

Unfortunately for many people, the type of natural philosophy which you speak of tends to be be very subjective and lead a person down a completely different path than one who is sitting next to them pursuing the same type of 'truth'. What is the criteria for true and false natural philosophy which seeks to draw us nearer to God? Different methods appear to work for different people. Until the distinctive criteria is defined which separates true from false, which separates good from bad, people will continue to forge their own paths seeking the divine, and there will be no ultimate resolution towards spiritual truth for humanity as a whole.

Yet, this 'death based theory' may end up saving many lives because of it.

could you cite one example of a life that has been saved by the theory that his or her great-ancestor was a blob of goo? does the person have to give intellectual assent to this story in order for its healing powers to work?

I'm asking some very simple, easy questions. Either you are dodging them or you simply don't understand them.

No, you are asking some interesting philosophical and rhetorical questions -- they are just not the kinds of questions that science has any desire to answer.

Yet it depends on how you answer them that determines what "science" is or whether there can be any science at all. Those are your presuppositions which you say don't exist. If you can't examine the presuppositions then any claim to the truth of your science is empty.

One does not need to know the presupposition of science to realize that it works and benefits mankind.

In other words, the ends justify the means. Good thinking- have you tried black magic? I've heard it can do wonders for your lovelife and bank account. As for the benefits of "science", I wonder how nuclear weapons or chemical spills are benefiting mankind. Nevermind that. You're right, materially we are very well off (well, some of us are) thanks to new technologies. If material well-being were the criterion of truth, then modern science would be my religion.

But the purpose of true natural philosophy is not making us live longer or creating neat gadgets (as much as I like these things)- like all wisdom, its purpose is to lift us up to the contemplation of heavenly realities and the glorification of God.

As St. Nikolai said: "'... whoever reads the natural without knowing the spiritual content and significance of what he has read, reads death, sees death, appropriates death." No wonder we arrived at this miserable, death-based theory of evolution by natural selection.

What is the means in this case, except for honest, objective inquiry? How could that be construed as bad or wrong, in the eyes of the Creator, or others? Scientists seek to objectively understand the world around us, and make it a better place for everyone, using the tools they have available to them; nature, and objective inquiry.

Unfortunately for many people, the type of natural philosophy which you speak of tends to be be very subjective and lead a person down a completely different path than one who is sitting next to them pursuing the same type of 'truth'. What is the criteria for true and false natural philosophy which seeks to draw us nearer to God? Different methods appear to work for different people. Until the distinctive criteria is defined which separates true from false, which separates good from bad, people will continue to forge their own paths seeking the divine, and there will be no ultimate resolution towards spiritual truth for humanity as a whole.

Yet, this 'death based theory' may end up saving many lives because of it.

could you cite one example of a life that has been saved by the theory that his or her great-ancestor was a blob of goo? does the person have to give intellectual assent to this story in order for its healing powers to work?

Do you have to know how your internet works in order to benefit from it? I don't think so, but the fact that someone did in fact know how it works is the reason why we have it today.

The adaptive evolution of bacteria, viruses, other microbes and parasites plays a central role in medicine since this process is needed to understand issues such as antibiotic resistance,[9] pathogen virulence.[10] and pathogen subversion of the immune system.[11]

I'm asking some very simple, easy questions. Either you are dodging them or you simply don't understand them.

No, you are asking some interesting philosophical and rhetorical questions -- they are just not the kinds of questions that science has any desire to answer.

Yet it depends on how you answer them that determines what "science" is or whether there can be any science at all. Those are your presuppositions which you say don't exist. If you can't examine the presuppositions then any claim to the truth of your science is empty.

One does not need to know the presupposition of science to realize that it works and benefits mankind.

In other words, the ends justify the means. Good thinking- have you tried black magic? I've heard it can do wonders for your lovelife and bank account. As for the benefits of "science", I wonder how nuclear weapons or chemical spills are benefiting mankind. Nevermind that. You're right, materially we are very well off (well, some of us are) thanks to new technologies. If material well-being were the criterion of truth, then modern science would be my religion.

But the purpose of true natural philosophy is not making us live longer or creating neat gadgets (as much as I like these things)- like all wisdom, its purpose is to lift us up to the contemplation of heavenly realities and the glorification of God.

As St. Nikolai said: "'... whoever reads the natural without knowing the spiritual content and significance of what he has read, reads death, sees death, appropriates death." No wonder we arrived at this miserable, death-based theory of evolution by natural selection.

What is the means in this case, except for honest, objective inquiry? How could that be construed as bad or wrong, in the eyes of the Creator, or others? Scientists seek to objectively understand the world around us, and make it a better place for everyone, using the tools they have available to them; nature, and objective inquiry.

Unfortunately for many people, the type of natural philosophy which you speak of tends to be be very subjective and lead a person down a completely different path than one who is sitting next to them pursuing the same type of 'truth'. What is the criteria for true and false natural philosophy which seeks to draw us nearer to God? Different methods appear to work for different people. Until the distinctive criteria is defined which separates true from false, which separates good from bad, people will continue to forge their own paths seeking the divine, and there will be no ultimate resolution towards spiritual truth for humanity as a whole.

Yet, this 'death based theory' may end up saving many lives because of it.

could you cite one example of a life that has been saved by the theory that his or her great-ancestor was a blob of goo? does the person have to give intellectual assent to this story in order for its healing powers to work?

Do you have to know how your internet works in order to benefit from it? I don't think so, but the fact that someone did in fact know how it works is the reason why we have it today.

The adaptive evolution of bacteria, viruses, other microbes and parasites plays a central role in medicine since this process is needed to understand issues such as antibiotic resistance,[9] pathogen virulence.[10] and pathogen subversion of the immune system.[11]

so youre saying we wouldnt be able to make medicinal advances if we didnt teach people that we are related to apes? im failing to see how the theory of common descent is necessary for scientists to understand how medicines work today. (couldnt they figure that out by observing/testing stuff ....?)

And unfortunately, this typifies common creationist reasoning. You state that "there could be various reasons", yet no one has produced a hypothesis that would consistently explain what we see. In order to convince the scientific community to dismiss a well-supported theory, it takes more than merely saying "Why, there's any number of other explanations." You have to actually proffer one.

Firstly, the aim here is not to convince secular scientists, who are not disposed to accept what our faith teaches about creation and early man in any case. The aim as I see it is to point out that there is not good evidence that evolutionism is compatible with Orthodoxy. Those who try to reconcile the two end up having to read things into Scripture and the Fathers that are just not there. I would certainly prefer it if the two could be reconciled, because I have no more wish than anyone else here to feel like an idiot in front of our secular brothers. But the tradition of the Church leaves me little room for maneuver.

Your insistence on formulating theories that fit all the available evidence seems unobjectionable to me, and I agree this is the right way to go about science. However, I feel that what God has revealed to us about the early history of the world severely constrains the kinds of conclusions we are permitted to draw from the evidence we see today, not as scientists but as Orthodox believers. Secular scientists obviously do not operate under these constraints, although they may well, and I believe many of them do in fact operate under other constraints, namely those of materialist philosophy.

This leads into what I was saying earlier about what constitutes evidence for us. A secular scientist only permits evidence available to our physical senses and our analytic reason, but the Orthodox believer also permits the evidence of Scripture, Tradition and our spiritual or noetic sense and reason. So the description of the Flood in the Bible itself constitutes evidence for its existence as far as we are concerned. If an unbeliever does not admit this evidence, that is his problem.

Having said all that, I think it is relevant to consider whether there is evidence now available to our senses or analytic reason that simply cannot be reconciled with what we read in Scripture or the Fathers. In that sense I agree that we should try to focus on the evidence for evolution versus special creation, and the age of the earth and the Flood and so on.

I know you must think I'm an imbecile, but I have to say I don't appreciate being talked down to as if I were. I am not a biologist or a geologist. I am a linguist, however, which is a kind of science, and I have frequently come into contact with evolutionary biology in my studies, in the context of things like theories of the evolution of the language faculty or "language instinct", and also the many analogical resemblances between biological evolution and historical linguistics (genetic relationships, cladistics and so forth). Also, in historical linguistics we generally appeal to the uniformitarian principle to explain language change in the past, just as geologists do to explain geological processes in the distant past.

I certainly don't think you're an imbecile, but rather I think we are all trying to work out some truly difficult problems concerning an apparently real conflict between our faith, as traditionally expressed, and the claims of a secular science that has never been informed by our faith. If I have ever treated you like an idiot, I ask your forgiveness.

I'm asking some very simple, easy questions. Either you are dodging them or you simply don't understand them.

No, you are asking some interesting philosophical and rhetorical questions -- they are just not the kinds of questions that science has any desire to answer.

Yet it depends on how you answer them that determines what "science" is or whether there can be any science at all. Those are your presuppositions which you say don't exist. If you can't examine the presuppositions then any claim to the truth of your science is empty.

One does not need to know the presupposition of science to realize that it works and benefits mankind.

In other words, the ends justify the means. Good thinking- have you tried black magic? I've heard it can do wonders for your lovelife and bank account. As for the benefits of "science", I wonder how nuclear weapons or chemical spills are benefiting mankind. Nevermind that. You're right, materially we are very well off (well, some of us are) thanks to new technologies. If material well-being were the criterion of truth, then modern science would be my religion.

But the purpose of true natural philosophy is not making us live longer or creating neat gadgets (as much as I like these things)- like all wisdom, its purpose is to lift us up to the contemplation of heavenly realities and the glorification of God.

As St. Nikolai said: "'... whoever reads the natural without knowing the spiritual content and significance of what he has read, reads death, sees death, appropriates death." No wonder we arrived at this miserable, death-based theory of evolution by natural selection.

What is the means in this case, except for honest, objective inquiry? How could that be construed as bad or wrong, in the eyes of the Creator, or others? Scientists seek to objectively understand the world around us, and make it a better place for everyone, using the tools they have available to them; nature, and objective inquiry.

Unfortunately for many people, the type of natural philosophy which you speak of tends to be be very subjective and lead a person down a completely different path than one who is sitting next to them pursuing the same type of 'truth'. What is the criteria for true and false natural philosophy which seeks to draw us nearer to God? Different methods appear to work for different people. Until the distinctive criteria is defined which separates true from false, which separates good from bad, people will continue to forge their own paths seeking the divine, and there will be no ultimate resolution towards spiritual truth for humanity as a whole.

Yet, this 'death based theory' may end up saving many lives because of it.

could you cite one example of a life that has been saved by the theory that his or her great-ancestor was a blob of goo? does the person have to give intellectual assent to this story in order for its healing powers to work?

Do you have to know how your internet works in order to benefit from it? I don't think so, but the fact that someone did in fact know how it works is the reason why we have it today.

The adaptive evolution of bacteria, viruses, other microbes and parasites plays a central role in medicine since this process is needed to understand issues such as antibiotic resistance,[9] pathogen virulence.[10] and pathogen subversion of the immune system.[11]

so youre saying we wouldnt be able to make medicinal advances if we didnt teach people that we are related to apes? im failing to see how the theory of common descent is necessary for scientists to understand how medicines work today. (couldnt they figure that out by observing/testing stuff ....?)

Darwin's idea that every living organism shares a common ancestor is the breakthrough that led to the development of the modern field of evolutionary biology/medicine as it exists today. Scientists do not need to sit around and ponder the fact that every living organism is related, it is a foregone conclusion that has been established long ago; however it is the basis for understanding evolutionary biology/medicine. It's like trying to learn basketball without knowing how to run. It is the basis for further understanding and development. Again, if you want to see how common descent is useful/relevant to the understanding of modern medicine, please read my above posts.

I know you must think I'm an imbecile, but I have to say I don't appreciate being talked down to as if I were. I am not a biologist or a geologist. I am a linguist, however, which is a kind of science, and I have frequently come into contact with evolutionary biology in my studies, in the context of things like theories of the evolution of the language faculty or "language instinct", and also the many analogical resemblances between biological evolution and historical linguistics (genetic relationships, cladistics and so forth). Also, in historical linguistics we generally appeal to the uniformitarian principle to explain language change in the past, just as geologists do to explain geological processes in the distant past.

What do you with these evolutionary findings with respect to language? Do you incorporate the findings in your studies, or disregard them?

I'm asking some very simple, easy questions. Either you are dodging them or you simply don't understand them.

No, you are asking some interesting philosophical and rhetorical questions -- they are just not the kinds of questions that science has any desire to answer.

Yet it depends on how you answer them that determines what "science" is or whether there can be any science at all. Those are your presuppositions which you say don't exist. If you can't examine the presuppositions then any claim to the truth of your science is empty.

One does not need to know the presupposition of science to realize that it works and benefits mankind.

In other words, the ends justify the means. Good thinking- have you tried black magic? I've heard it can do wonders for your lovelife and bank account. As for the benefits of "science", I wonder how nuclear weapons or chemical spills are benefiting mankind. Nevermind that. You're right, materially we are very well off (well, some of us are) thanks to new technologies. If material well-being were the criterion of truth, then modern science would be my religion.

But the purpose of true natural philosophy is not making us live longer or creating neat gadgets (as much as I like these things)- like all wisdom, its purpose is to lift us up to the contemplation of heavenly realities and the glorification of God.

As St. Nikolai said: "'... whoever reads the natural without knowing the spiritual content and significance of what he has read, reads death, sees death, appropriates death." No wonder we arrived at this miserable, death-based theory of evolution by natural selection.

What is the means in this case, except for honest, objective inquiry?

What leads you to conclude that materialism is "objective" or "honest"? Are you an Epicurean? A Deist?

Quote

How could that be construed as bad or wrong, in the eyes of the Creator, or others? Scientists seek to objectively understand the world around us, and make it a better place for everyone, using the tools they have available to them; nature, and objective inquiry.

God gave us other tools as well, which your natural philosophy as a rule excludes from its methodology. Suppose someone wanted to play a symphony, but decided to remove all the parts for wind instruments. Would this be an "honest, objective" way to represent the composer's work? Sure, some parts will be alright, especially those parts that rely mainly on other types of instruments. Depending on the piece, the uninformed listener might still think he's hearing a coherent and complete composition. Nevertheless, the overall presentation of the music is misleading and distorted. But you would say "who cares what the composer intended? It still sounded nice."

Quote

Unfortunately for many people, the type of natural philosophy which you speak of tends to be be very subjective

And there is your basic prejudice- if it's not apparent to the five senses or quantifiable mathematically, it must be "subjective." And yet we continually operate as if some of these "subjective" phenomena are very objective indeed.

Quote

What is the criteria for true and false natural philosophy which seeks to draw us nearer to God?

For starters, we might ask, does it conform with and illuminate the rest of revelation for us?

Quote

Different methods appear to work for different people. Until the distinctive criteria is defined which separates true from false, which separates good from bad,

Thankfully the Church has done that for us. No, not everyone accepts the Church or its Tradition, but that does not make it less true.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

"Dobzhansky was a religious man, although he apparently rejected fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of a personal God and of life beyond physical death. His religiosity was grounded on the conviction that there is meaning in the universe. He saw that meaning in the fact that evolution has produced the stupendous diversity of the living world and has progressed from primitive forms of life to mankind. Dobzhansky held that, in man, biological evolution has transcended itself into the realm of self-awareness and culture. He believed that somehow mankind would eventually evolve into higher levels of harmony and creativity."- from this biographical article by his student Francisco Ayala

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

The true goal of all wisdom is not the material benefit of mankind but the contemplation of spiritual realities and the glorification of the Creator.

No! The true goal of evolutionary biology (and of all other sciences) is simply answering the question "Which explanation best fits our observations?" It doesn't attempt to contemplate spiritual realities at all. It makes no comment on the Creator, whether glorifying or not. Any connection there is one that you are inferring. That's what's been lost in the shuffle here.

In replying to your post Jonathan, I truly apologize for its immense length. I just wanted to compile some of my posts about St. Athanasius as well as give other Church fathers' views that support the idea that man is two natures in an abstract sense and also some additional interesting tidbits by St. Gregory Nazienzen and St. Irenaeus. I hope after this, if you still disagree, I don't think I can make another post again, and I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm reading St Athanasius and I don't get the feeling he is explicitly rejecting the literal reading of Genesis: I think you're reading that into him. It seems rather he is assuming it and using it as the basis for his allegorical interpretation, just as St Gregory the Theologian did. Plus there are many other Fathers where the literal interpretation is much more prominent. For instance, St Athanasius certainly speaks of our natural state as corruptible. But it seems to me he is using "natural" in one particular sense, to mean nature without grace, after the Fall, which is corruptible. Other Fathers, however, speak of our natural state as incorruptible, e.g. Abba Dorotheus in his First Instruction:

Quote

In the beginning, when God created man (Gn. 2:20), He placed him in Paradise and adorned him with every virtue, giving him the commandment not to taste of the tree which was in the midst of Paradise. And thus he remained there in the enjoyment of Paradise; in prayer, in vision, in every glory and honor, having sound senses and being in the same natural condition in which he was created. For God created man according to His own image, that is, immortal, master of himself, and adorned with every virtue. But when he transgressed the commandment, eating the fruit of the tree of which God had commanded him not to taste, then he was banished from Paradise (Gn. 3), fell away from the natural condition, and fell into a condition against nature, and then he remained in sin, in love of glory, in love for the enjoyments of this age and of other passions, and he was mastered by them, for he became himself their slave through the transgression.

So in one sense our current corruption is natural, but in another sense it is unnatural. It doesn't seem to me reasonable to use St Athanasius' words to bolster evolutionist claims that corruption and death are natural, when other saints say the opposite about our nature. The Fathers who speak of our condition becoming unnatural clearly consider our prelapsarian condition, the condition to which we were restored by Christ, to be the only truly natural one.

You're absolutely correct. I agree that St. Athanasius doesn't mean and certainly I don't mean that death is natural in that sense. In a sense, it is unnatural, that is, it is not befitting our spiritual nature. But it is natural insomuch our physical nature complies with. Therefore, when we want to transcend physical nature, i.e. transcend the natural into what is natural in the spirit with the help of the divine grace, then understand that I don't see how this contradicts evolutionary theory.

Quote

Also, I'm not so sure it's correct to say that human nature is defined as a union of human and angelic, in the way Christ is a union of divine and human natures. It seems rather that human nature is its own thing, while it shares characteristics with both the animals and the angels. Fr Seraphim actually stresses this in his essay.

I'm not sure what Fr. Seraphim said. But this is what I understand. Surely, Christ as a whole is different than we are, but He is fully consubstantial with us. In other words, Christ is quite unique, and there's nobody like Him. But we are all exactly like Him in His human nature, and this is done in order for us to be raised up into His divine eternal life.

The illustration is an abstract illustration, not a concrete one. I am only giving a dualistic understanding in an abstract sense, and I do not mean to be dualistic in philosophy. I believe that the physical nature cannot exist separately from the spiritual nature. Neither do I believe that we became incarnate in some way or that we got a spiritual nature in some way separately from the other nature. Both were there together at the same time, and both grew together in one complete human nature. We are not like Christ who is the eternal Logos and then took flesh and made it His very own. For us, both physical and spiritual natures came at the same time. However, the union between the two in us can be likened to the union between humanity and divinity in Christ, and this is a teaching I get from St. Cyril of Alexandria, who uses this illustration repeatedly when teaching the incarnation and unity of Christ. When the Church fathers were condemning the heresy of Apollinarius, their criticism to him was that the Apollinarian Christ's salvific work only befits the animals. This lead to the famous Gregorian quote, "What is not assumed cannot be saved."

I will say this. It is because of the Fall that we live in a dualistic fashion. It is why St. Paul speaks in dualistic language, but that doesn't make him a dualist. In man without God, there is always a conflict. I do the things that I don't want to do, and I don't do the things that I want and should do. Quoting out of memory, "Wretched man I am, who will save me from this body of death" St. Paul exclaims? It's only in dualism where we live in a body of death. Christ, who took our form, united all of human nature into Himself, and willingly partook of death to destroy death's hold on man's life. Christ nullified the dualism that comes from death. And so rightly here, we understand human nature as a whole, it would be unnatural for him to die. But for the world, for the animals, it is completely natural, and St. Athanasius is very clear about that.

Allow me to rehash all the links of my talks about St. Athanasius with proper quotes that I wrote about in various places of OC.net, one of which was not so long ago with you in a political forum. These are all in order by time written:

The Fathers did reject the materialistic cosmogonies of their time with the words of Scripture. St. John Crysostom stated that while St. John the Evangelist was the prophet of the end of time, Moses prophesied the beginning of time. Both spheres of knowledge natural science would not be able to touch.

I don't know what that proves. Besides, young age creationism was perhaps widely acceptable in the early days of Fathers as a science, but not necessarily as a dogma.

Quote

Is the resurrection of Christ scientifically explicable? If not, why the creation of man?

No! It is something I have faith in, and it cannot be explained. Only what I see, the proofs and evidence before me provided to me by the creation of God is what I use to make my case.

Quote

Who dictates what should and should not be taken literally?

The Alexandrian approach to Scripture (started by Philo of Alexandria) was always to look at Scripture as spiritual and allegorical, a way to understand man's relationship with God, where we should not place emphasis on scientific or historical accuracy. Some of the things the prophets may have written may be wrong. And if some Fathers have not taken the 7 days literally, then why should one take anything else written literally? Does God have a right hand? Does God have a body or eyes?

Therefore, we should try our best to look at everything in a spiritual manner, and perhaps prophetic. For example, the situation with Adam's rib being Eve may not be true scientifically, but spiritually and prophetically, it has a beautiful significance, for that also symbolizes that the Church was made and purchased by the water and blood coming out of the side of Christ. The fact that Moses wrote that, whether or not it is literally correct, shows us the profound spiritual and prophetic significance of this verse.

If one reads the beginning of St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation," he rejects three creationist theories, atheism, Platonic pre-existent matter beliefs, and some Gnosticism (two God theory). Evolution is not any one of these. Only some may put evolution into these categories, but I can safely be a theistic evolutionist.

Quote

What need is there to mix evolution with theology?

There is no need. It is simply an interest, a theologomenoun.

Dear Mont,

Quote

The problem is you are equating Eden and paradise here. Athanasius is referring to paradise as the state of mind.

Yes, I am equating them, and there is no problem. In fact, St. Athanasius did not believe "Paradise" to be just a state of mind, but also a place. Again, read St. Athanasius' part 3 that I've provided:

Quote

But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things—namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption.

You can't get any clearer than that. A law and a place, the law being the prohibition, the place he calls "Paradise." God "SET" them there, and not just gave it to them. They would no longer live in it after their disobedience, and dye outside of it. I think though that the fact that he calls Paradise a "place" is irrefutable.

Quote

That would mean God had to different creation, one natural and one not, and that all the animals, and Adam and Eve, we not part of the natural creation, therefore contradicting more Fathers and verses than I can reasonably count. Finally, the law of death was natural in the sense that it was the natural course of sin, a position which is supported by the scriptures.

Both are natural, one with death natural, and one with immortality as natural. I don't know how much more clearer St. Athanasius can get. That says it all my friend. The fact that we enter into the laws of the world means that St. Athanasius believed, unlike other Fathers, that animals did die before corruption. The type of corruption that enter the world was sin, and sin is not with anaimals but in the human world.

Quote

How do you know? What science writings by what Father are you talking about?

According to Bishop Alexander Mileant, the scientific information available to the Fathers were not as advanced as today, so many would use some logic to whether one could believe in one scientific theory over another. For example, the idea of a flat earth was accepted by many fathers, like Augustine, Ambrose, Diodore of Tarsus, Basil, and perhaps Cyril of Jerusalem. St. John Chrysostom even held very strongly that the view of the earth being round would contradict Scripture. One wonders then why the Roman Church was so hard on Galileo, and we as Orthodox do not wonder if we would have probably done the same (except perhaps Egypt, since in Alexandria for centuries it was believed that the world was round).

Sooo, if some of these Fathers were given proof that the world was round, they would believe it and change their writings. St. Augustine have written that if he has written any mistakes, may God and the Christians forgive him. And St. Basil even gave his dislikes on St. Dionysius of Alexandria's writings. You can't blindly quote the Holy Fathers, but you yourself have to find yourself in agreement with the Orthodox faith and with them. Many people have denounced St. Augustine for many possible heretical issues. If something scientifically wrong was written by the Fathers, why should one choose the Fathers' wrong observations over correct research?

Quote

Over-all we believe that the Church is infalible, not going by any one writer. I'm not aware of an 'over-all' opinion by Fathers OTHER THAN to accept creation.

Yes, evolution IS creation. The Church is infallible over spirituality and doctrines, not science.

Quote

Let's get one thing clear. Evolution is a naturalistic approach. Naturalism is by its nature anti-supernatural. Scientists believe that we evolved 'naturally', we came into being 'naturally' etc. God has no room in this scheme. The evolution that most people are taught is one that removes God.

Any science only talks about what is indeed natural, and there is nothing wrong with that. Science cannot prove God's existence, and spirituality has no room in science. To mix both, one must harmonize both, not putting science as a part of spirituality. And the evolution that most people are taught does not remove God, it simply does not include Him. I have no problem in including Him, and evolution has no way of disproving Him or His existence.

Quote

They don't deny God per se, but have pushed God's role back.

Actually, to me, this makes His role all the more greater. Evolution and the laws of science affirms a diversity found only with God's existence. Without God, as St. Athanasius believed, the world would perhaps be not diverse and complicated, but very simple, or in his terms, the whole body would be "hand, foot, or eye" or there would be only sun, or moon, and not both. The diversity of laws and the complicated laws of evolution all the more praises God's amazingness.

For the third time, please read the articles provided by the late Bishop Alexander Mileant, who was also ROCOR. They contain all the arguments used by Orthodox Christian theistic evolutionists.

God bless you.

Mina

April 13, 2006 (this next one is interesting; despite what some people believe, the Greek Orthodox Church has liturgically shown that the Fall of man equates returning to the world of natural death)

For having made man by taking dust from the earth, and having honored him with Your own image, 0 God, You placed him in a garden of delight, promising him eternal life and the enjoyment of everlasting blessings in the observance of Your commandments. But when he disobeyed You, the true God who had created him, and was led astray by the deception of the serpent becoming subject to death through his own transgressions, You, 0 God, in Your righteous judgment, expelled him from paradise into this world, returning him to the earth from which he was taken, yet providing for him the salvation of regeneration in Your Christ.

I've also heard an interpretation where the tree of knowledge is not bad in and of itself; it was just taken at the wrong time, at Adam and Eve's state of immaturity. All they needed to know was if you obey God, you'll stay in the garden, and you'll be fine. They were fooled to think they'll be like God, so they'll be fine anyway, so they did know they disobeyed Him, and they knew they did wrong on that issue.

St. Athanasius said that in order to reserve their grace of incorruption, two things took place, a law and a place. The law was simple, obey God: don't eat that tree. Place: Paradise (typified as a garden). Stay here, away from the world and don't eat that tree or else you'll die surely. When you grow, you'll understand. (it is also believed by Church fathers, like St. Irenaeus that when they grow, the Logos was going to be incarnate anyway, and it is then when they can partake both of Life and Knowledge in Christ). Well, like children, they didn't want to wait.

Grudging existence to none therefore, He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ and of all these His earthly creatures He reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked—namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things—namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption.

...

By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing; but he bears also the Likeness of Him Who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then his nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt. So is it affirmed in Wisdom: "The keeping of His laws is the assurance of incorruption." And being incorrupt, he would be henceforth as God, as Holy Scripture says, "I have said, Ye are gods and sons of the Highest all of you: but ye die as men and fall as one of the princes."

A couple of points St. Athanasius is teaching us:

1. Man like any creation is made out of nothing.2. Anything creation that is made out of nothing is naturally mortal, or impermanent. In other words, naturally, you will die.3. Man unlike other animals received something different from animals, a grace, i.e. the impress of the Image and Likeness of the Logos.4. The Image and Likeness is the source of man's sharing with the reasoning, incorruption, and immortality of God.5. God removed man from his natural habitat into His Paradise (where the saints who die are in now) so that man's grace may be secured.6. If man disobeyed God's commandment, man's grace won't be secured, and he'll return back to his natural habitat, under the natural law of death and corruption with all the other animals.

3For when the mind of men does not hold converse with bodies, nor has mingled with it from without aught of their lust, but is wholly above them, dwelling with itself as it was made to begin with, then, transcending the things of sense and all things human, it is raised up on high; and seeing the Word, it sees in Him also the Father of the Word, taking pleasure in contemplating Him, and gaining renewal by its desire toward Him; 4. exactly as the first of men created, the one who was named Adam in Hebrew, is described in the Holy Scriptures as having at the beginning had his mind to God-ward in a freedom unembarrassed by shame, and as associating with the holy ones in that contemplation of things perceived by the mind which he enjoyed in the place where he was—the place which the holy Moses called in figure a Garden. So purity of soul is sufficient of itself to reflect God, as the Lord also says, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

And as the Coptic Church prays in the Basilian Liturgy:

"Agios (Holy), Agios, Agios. Holy, Holy, Holy, truly O Lord, our God, who formed us, created us and placed us in the paradise of joy. When we disobeyed your commandment by the guile of the serpent, we fell from eternal life, and were exiled from the paradise of joy."

That's very interesting what you say about St Athanasius and the "impermanence" of other animals. Do you have a reference?

Quote from: St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation"

Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked—namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things—namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven.

In other words, without this grace, there would be no immortality.

Here again St. Athanasius reiterates:

Quote

as I said before, though they were by nature subject to corruption, the grace of their union with the Word made them capable of escaping from the natural law, provided that they retained the beauty of innocence with which they were created. That is to say, the presence of the Word with them shielded them even from natural corruption, as also Wisdom says: "God created man for incorruption and as an image of His own eternity; but by envy of the devil death entered into the world." When this happened, men began to die, and corruption ran riot among them and held sway over them to an even more than natural degree, because it was the penalty of which God had forewarned them for transgressing the commandment.

It is therefore natural that creation would be corruptible and die. It is a law of entropy. God's grace of unity with man prevented man from such natural inclinations. Only to man did God gave this gift. But man did not guard the gift, and marred his own image.

Of course, there are other contributions I made within this very thread which I won't requote. I talked about Origen's interpretation of Scripture, how it's possible to find "fiction" that is in Scriptures, but filled with allegory. He talks about how one should not be so simple-minded as to take the trees of Paradise literally, but figuratively. I find this also what St. Gregory Nazienzen taught, which I will quote at the end for you. Continuing with what you wrote:

Quote

Finally, your claims about the purposes of the Genesis creation "myth", that they were only intended to "delegitimize" other pagan myths, are interesting and intellectually attractive, but they are not patristic. They are what a secular historian of comparative religion might claim, but not what traditional Orthodox exegesis claims.

In conclusion, my impression is that you overly rely on one single Father, St Athanasius, to the exclusion of other Fathers, whose words cannot be so molded to fit your particular theistic evolutionism. Furthermore, you insist on a certain interpretation of St Athanasius' words to convey your idea that man was corruptible at first, being descended from corruptible animals by natural generation, was lifted from corruption and placed in Paradise, and then fell away to his original state. However, St Athanasius does not say this in so many words; only his particular use of the term "nature" can be made to fit that interpretation. Moreover, the witness of other Fathers makes it clear that the Church has traditionally held man to have been originally created in incorruption, and that Man's current state of corruption is solely due to his fall, and not to do with nature as it was before the fall. As a believer in the consensus patrum, I would prefer to assume that St Athanasius believed the same things as the other Fathers about the nature of man. If in fact he did not, then I would still have to say that his views do not accord with the patristic consensus.

Consensus patrum is important. But I honestly am not afraid to use St. Athanasius as a sole source for my faith because I regard his works as supremely infallible. No one ever challenged St. Athanasius, and his writings have been a source for true Christian doctrine, even outside the bounds of Catholic and Orthodox churches. Nevertheless, I bring you St. Gregory Nazienzen. He writes about the two natures of humanity, the pinnacle of the God's creation, after creating the invisible and the visible worlds. He writes about how man was taken into Paradise ("whatever the Paradise may have been"...in other words, it doesn't matter to him whether you believe it to be an actual place, or in the heavens) and how the plants of Paradise are not really plants, but "Divine Contemplation." So this means the trees are not really trees, but Divine Contemplations of Life and Knowledge. He talks about how the Tree of Knowledge, that is a particular higher level of Divine Contemplation is not bad, but was to be reserved for a more opportune time. Therefore, the Fall was not from an evil tree, but from disobedience and greed. Man was too immature at the time to partake of it. In other words (St. Irenaeus also taught this), man was still a child in mind and needed to concentrate on Life for growth. St. Irenaeus taught that the Logos would have been incarnate anyway, Fall or no Fall. We are in a sense because of the Incarnation partaking of the fruit of both Life and Knowledge, because as theosis demands, we are now being made like God. Can you really honestly call the Divine Nature literally a tree?

And I would add that Sts. Irenaeus and Gregory Nazienzen are also those infallible sources that no one usually challenges either.

IV. And when Infinity is considered from two points of view, beginning and end (for that which is beyond these and not limited by them is Infinity), when the mind looks into the depths above, not having where to stand, and leans upon phænomena to form an idea of God it calls the Infinite and Unapproachable which it finds there by the name of Unoriginate. And when it looks into the depth below and at the future, it calls Him Undying and Imperishable. And when it draws a conclusion from the whole, it calls Him Eternal. For Eternity is neither time nor part of time; for it cannot be measured. But what time measured by the course of the sun is to us, that Eternity is to the Everlasting; namely a sort of timelike movement and interval, coextensive with Their Existence. This however is all that I must now say of God; for the present is not a suitable time, as my present subject is not the doctrine of God, but that of the Incarnation. And when I say God, I mean Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; for Godhead is neither diffused beyond These, so as to introduce a mob of gods, nor yet bounded by a smaller compass than These, so as to condemn us for a poverty stricken conception of Deity, either Judaizing to save the Monarchia, or falling into heathenism by the multitude of our gods. For the evil on either side is the same, though found in contrary directions. Thus then is the Holy of Holies, Which is hidden even from the Seraphim, and is glorified with a thrice-repeated Holy meeting in one ascription of the title Lord and God, as one of our predecessors has most beautifully and loftily reasoned out.

V. But since this movement of Self-contemplation alone could not satisfy Goodness, but Good must be poured out and go forth beyond Itself, to multiply the objects of Its beneficence (for this was essential to the highest Goodness), He first conceived the Angelic and Heavenly Powers. And this conception was a work fulfilled by His Word and perfected by His Spirit. And so the Secondary Splendours came into being, as the ministers of the Primary Splendour (whether we are to conceive of them as intelligent Spirits, or as Fire of an immaterial and incorporeal kind, or as some other nature approaching this as near as may be). I should like to say that they are incapable of movement in the direction of evil, and susceptible only of the movement of good, as being about God and illuminated with the first Rays from God (for earthly beings have but the second illumination), but I am obliged to stop short of saying that they are immovable, and to conceive and speak of them as only difficult to move, because of him who for His Splendour was called Lucifer, but became and is called Darkness through his pride; and the Apostate Hosts who are subject to him, creators of evil by their revolt against good, and our inciters.

VI. Thus then and for these reasons, He gave being to the world of thought, as far as I can reason on these matters, and estimate great things in my own poor language. Then, when His first Creation was in good order, He conceives a second world, material and visible; and this a system of earth and sky and all that is in the midst of them; an admirable creation indeed when we look at the fair form of every part, but yet more worthy of admiration when we consider the harmony and unison of the whole, and how each part fits in with every other in fair order, and all with the whole, tending to the perfect completion of the world as a Unit. This was to shew that He could call into being not only a nature akin to Himself, but also one altogether alien to Him. For akin to Deity are those natures which are intellectual, and only to be comprehended by mind; but all of which sense can take cognizance are utterly alien to It; and of these the furthest removed from it are all those which are entirely destitute of soul and power of motion.

VII. Mind then and sense, thus distinguished from each other, had remained within their own boundaries, and bore in themselves the magnificence of the Creator-Word, silent praisers and thrilling heralds of His mighty work. Not yet was there any mingling of both, nor any mixture of these opposites, tokens of a greater wisdom and generosity in the creation of natures; nor as yet were the whole riches of goodness made known. Now the Creator-Word, determining to exhibit this, and to produce a single living being out of both (the invisible and the visible creation, I mean) fashions Man; and taking a body from already existing matter, and placing in it a Breath taken from Himself (which the Word knew to be an intelligent soul, and the image of God), as a sort of second world, great in littleness, He placed him on the earth, a new Angel, a mingled worshipper, fully initiated into the visible creation, but only partially into the intellectual; king of all upon earth, but subject to the King above; earthly and heavenly; temporal and yet immortal; visible and yet intellectual; halfway between greatness and lowliness; in one person combining spirit and flesh; spirit because of the favour bestowed on him, flesh on account of the height to which he had been raised; the one that he might continue to live and glorify his benefactor, the other that he might suffer, and by suffering be put in remembrance, and be corrected if he became proud in his greatness; a living creature, trained here and then moved elsewhere; and to complete the mystery, deified by its inclination to God…for to this, I think, tends that light of Truth which here we possess but in measure; that we should both see and experience the Splendour of God, which is worthy of Him Who made us, and will dissolve us, and remake us after a loftier fashion.

VIII. This being He placed in paradise—whatever that paradise may have been (having honoured him with the gift of free will, in order that good might belong to him as the result of his choice, no less than to Him Who had implanted the seeds of it)—to till the immortal plants, by which is perhaps meant the Divine conceptions, both the simpler and the more perfect; naked in his simplicity and inartificial life; and without any covering or screen; for it was fitting that he who was from the beginning should be such. And He gave Him a Law, as material for his free will to act upon. This Law was a commandment as to what plants he might partake of, and which one he might not touch. This latter was the Tree of Knowledge; not, however, because it was evil from the beginning when planted; nor was it forbidden because God grudged it to men—let not the enemies of God wag their tongues in that direction, or imitate the serpent. But it would have been good if partaken of at the proper time; for the Tree was, according to my theory, Contemplation, which it is only safe for those who have reached maturity of habit to enter upon; but which is not good for those who are still somewhat simple and greedy; just as neither is solid food good for those who are yet tender and have need of milk. But when through the devil’s malice and the woman’s caprice, to which she succumbed as the more tender, and which she brought to bear upon the man, as she was the more apt to persuade—alas for my weakness, for that of my first father was mine; he forgot the commandment which had been given him, and yielded to the baleful fruit; and for his sin was banished at once from the tree of life, and from paradise, and from God; and put on the coats of skins, that is, perhaps, the coarser flesh, both mortal and contradictory. And this was the first thing which he learnt—his own shame—and he hid himself from God. Yet here too he makes a gain, namely death and the cutting off of sin, in order that evil may not be immortal. Thus, his punishment is changed into a mercy, for it is in mercy, I am persuaded, that God inflicts punishment.

St. Irenaeus teaches about the human nature having an animal body, in which its life depends on the human soul, but the human soul also depends on the life of God. He also talks about the infantile state of man, that God did not create man immediately as an adult, but started as a child, and then into growth. He also taught that part of Adam's nature is from the Earth, and so shows our consubstantiality with it, and added to it the Image of God. The Logos taking full humanity obeyed to accept death "on a tree" to replace disobedience of partaking of the tree that caused man's death. Also, St. Irenaeus gives us a glimpse of the understanding of Genesis, where some took the seven days literally, others as 7000 years, and so from this, he interprets that Adam not reaching 1000 years in age died in the sixth day of creation, before he can even partake of God's eternal rest (and so God is true on the fact that "in the same day you will die"), and where this is a prophetic announcement of God in the flesh would be crucified right before the Sabbath, and so on that "tree" we partake of the Fruit, the Christ in the Eucharist, the "Pure Supper":

3. For as the heaven which is above us, the firmament, the sun, the moon, the rest of the stars, and all their grandeur, although they had no previous existence, were called into being, and continue throughout a long course of time according to the will of God, so also any one who thinks thus respecting souls and spirits, and, in fact, respecting all created things, will not by any means go far astray, inasmuch as all things that have been made had a beginning when they were formed, but endure as long as God wills that they should have an existence and continuance. The prophetic Spirit bears testimony to these opinions, when He declares, “For He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created: He hath established them for ever, yea, forever and ever. And again, He thus speaks respecting the salvation of man: “He asked life of Thee, and Thou gavest him length of days for ever and ever; indicating that it is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved. For life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature; but it is bestowed according to the grace of God. And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days for ever and ever. But he who shall reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognised Him who bestowed [the gift upon him], deprives himself of [the privilege of] continuance for ever and ever. And, for this reason, the Lord declared to those who showed themselves ungrateful towards Him: “If ye have not been faithful in that which is little, who will give you that which is great?" indicating that those who, in this brief temporal life, have shown themselves ungrateful to Him who bestowed it, shall justly not receive from Him length of days for ever and ever.

4. But as the animal body is certainly not itself the soul, yet has fellowship with the soul as long as God pleases; so the soul herself is not life, but partakes in that life bestowed upon her by God. Wherefore also the prophetic word declares of the first-formed man, “He became a living soul,” teaching us that by the participation of life the soul became alive; so that the soul, and the life which it possesses, must be understood as being separate existences. When God therefore bestows life and perpetual duration, it comes to pass that even souls which did not previously exist should henceforth endure [for ever], since God has both willed that they should exist, and should continue in existence. For the will of God ought to govern and rule in all things, while all other things give way to Him, are in subjection, and devoted to His service. Thus far, then, let me speak concerning the creation and the continued duration of the soul.

1. If, however, any one say, “What then? Could not God have exhibited man as perfect from beginning?” let him know that, inasmuch as God is indeed always the same and unbegotten as respects Himself, all things are possible to Him. But created things must be inferior to Him who created them, from the very fact of their later origin; for it was not possible for things recently created to have been uncreated. But inasmuch as they are not uncreated, for this very reason do they come short of the perfect. Because, as these things are of later date, so are they infantile; so are they unaccustomed to, and unexercised in, perfect discipline. For as it certainly is in the power of a mother to give strong food to her infant, [but she does not do so], as the child is not yet able to receive more substantial nourishment; so also it was possible for God Himself to have made man perfect from the first, but man could not receive this [perfection], being as yet an infant. And for this cause our Lord in these last times, when He had summed up all things into Himself, came to us, not as He might have come, but as we were capable of beholding Him. He might easily have come to us in His immortal glory, but in that case we could never have endured the greatness of the glory; and therefore it was that He, who was the perfect bread of the Father, offered Himself to us as milk, [because we were] as infants. He did this when He appeared as a man, that we, being nourished, as it were, from the breast of His flesh, and having, by such a course of milk nourishment, become accustomed to eat and drink the Word of God, may be able also to contain in ourselves the Bread of immortality, which is the Spirit of the Father.

...

3. With God there are simultaneously exhibited power, wisdom, and goodness. His power and goodness [appear] in this, that of His own will He called into being and fashioned things having no previous existence; His wisdom [is shown] in His having made created things parts of one harmonious and consistent whole; and those things which, through His super-eminent kindness, receive growth and a long period of existence, do reflect the glory of the uncreated One, of that God who bestows what is good ungrudgingly. For from the very fact of these things having been created, [it follows] that they are not uncreated; but by their continuing in being throughout a long course of ages, they shall receive a faculty of the Uncreated, through the gratuitous bestowal of eternal existence upon them by God. And thus in all things God has the pre-eminence, who alone is uncreated, the first of all things, and the primary cause of the existence of all, while all other things remain under God’s subjection. But being in subjection to God is continuance in immortality, and immortality is the glory of the uncreated One. By this arrangement, therefore, and these harmonies, and a sequence of this nature, man, a created and organized being, is rendered after the image and likeness of the uncreated God,—the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing [what is made], but man making progress day by day, and ascending towards the perfect, that is, approximating to the uncreated One. For the Uncreated is perfect, that is, God. Now it was necessary that man should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin]; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see his Lord. For God is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding of God is productive of immortality, but immortality renders one nigh unto God.

4. ...

But since we could not sustain the power of divinity, He adds, “But ye shall die like men,” setting forth both truths—the kindness of His free gift, and our weakness, and also that we were possessed of power over ourselves. For after His great kindness He graciously conferred good [upon us], and made men like to Himself, [that is] in their own power; while at the same time by His prescience He knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through [His] love and [His] power, He shall overcome the substance of created nature. For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil.

1. And since Adam was moulded from this earth to which we belong, the Scripture tells us that God said to him, “In the sweat of thy face shall thou eat thy bread, until thou turnest again to the dust from whence thou wert taken.” If then, after death, our bodies return to any other substance, it follows that from it also they have their substance. But if it be into this very [earth], it is manifest that it was also from it that man’s frame was created; as also the Lord clearly showed, when from this very substance He formed eyes for the man [to whom He gave sight]. And thus was the hand of God plainly shown forth, by which Adam was fashioned, and we too have been formed; and since there is one and the same Father, whose voice from the beginning even to the end is present with His handiwork, and the substance from which we were formed is plainly declared through the Gospel, we should therefore not seek after another Father besides Him, nor [look for] another substance from which we have been formed, besides what was mentioned beforehand, and shown forth by the Lord; nor another hand of God besides that which, from the beginning even to the end, forms us and prepares us for life, and is present with His handiwork, and perfects it after the image and likeness of God.

2. And then, again, this Word was manifested when the Word of God was made man, assimilating Himself to man, and man to Himself, so that by means of his resemblance to the Son, man might become precious to the Father. For in times long past, it was said that man was created after the image of God, but it was not [actually] shown; for the Word was as yet invisible, after whose image man was created, Wherefore also he did easily lose the similitude. When, however, the Word of God became flesh, He confirmed both these: for He both showed forth the image truly, since He became Himself what was His image; and He re-established the similitude after a sure manner, by assimilating man to the invisible Father through means of the visible Word.

3. And not by the aforesaid things alone has the Lord manifested Himself, but [He has done this] also by means of His passion. For doing away with [the effects of] that disobedience of man which had taken place at the beginning by the occasion of a tree, “He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross;” rectifying that disobedience which had occurred by reason of a tree, through that obedience which was [wrought out] upon the tree [of the cross]. Now He would not have come to do away, by means of that same [image], the disobedience which had been incurred towards our Maker if He proclaimed another Father. But inasmuch as it was by these things that we disobeyed God, and did not give credit to His word, so was it also by these same that He brought in obedience and consent as respects His Word; by which things He clearly shows forth God Himself, whom indeed we had offended in the first Adam, when he did not perform His commandment. In the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, being made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other but to Him whose commandment we had transgressed at the beginning.

2. Thus, then, in the day that they did eat, in the same did they die, and became death’s debtors, since it was one day of the creation. For it is said, “There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day.” Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die. But according to the cycle and progress of the days, after which one is termed first, another second, and another third, if anybody seeks diligently to learn upon what day out of the seven it was that Adam died, he will find it by examining the dispensation of the Lord. For by summing up in Himself the whole human race from the beginning to the end, He has also summed up its death. From this it is clear that the Lord suffered death, in obedience to His Father, upon that day on which Adam died while he disobeyed God. Now he died on the same day in which he did eat. For God said, “In that day on which ye shall eat of it, ye shall die by death.” The Lord, therefore, recapitulating in Himself this day, underwent His sufferings upon the day preceding the Sabbath, that is, the sixth day of the creation, on which day man was created; thus granting him a second creation by means of His passion, which is that [creation] out of death. And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since “a day of the Lord is as a thousand years,” he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin. Whether, therefore, with respect to disobedience, which is death; whether [we consider] that, on account of that, they were delivered over to death, and made debtors to it; whether with respect to [the fact that on] one and the same day on which they ate they also died (for it is one day of the creation); whether [we regard this point], that, with respect to this cycle of days, they died on the day in which they did also eat, that is, the day of the preparation, which is termed “the pure supper,” that is, the sixth day of the feast, which the Lord also exhibited when He suffered on that day; or whether [we reflect] that he (Adam) did not overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit,—it follows that, in regard to all these significations, God is indeed true. For they died who tasted of the tree; and the serpent is proved a liar and a murderer, as the Lord said of him: “For he is a murderer from the beginning, and the truth is not in him.”

In these we undertand the essentials of true doctrine. God created man in an infantile state out of material substance, but also out of spiritual substance, in one human nature. Man would be put in Paradise and grow continually through the Son and the Spirit. However, man being hasty and not allowing room for his own growth disobeyed God through the deception of the serpent, the Devil. In other areas which I didn't quote, St. Irenaeus teaches that God didn't curse Adam and Eve, but cursed the work they will partake of, whereas the serpent was directly cursed, and the lake of Fire will be reserved for him. The Logos therefore came, took full humanity, as well as all its stages of growth, both physical and spiritual, to redeem man and deify him.

Today, evolution does not contradict the fact that man's substance is of the same substance of earth. Evolution, since it's a science, has no way of sensing man's spiritual nature, since according to St. Gregory, this cannot be sensed. Evolution teaches as St. Gregory teaches that man has derived itself from animal nature, and we of course understand by faith man is also a spiritual nature. Both are put together in one human nature. Christ was fully this man and of course fully divine, so that we may continue to further in the growth process that was stalled by Adam's disobedience.

God bless you and keep me in your prayers.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

"Dobzhansky was a religious man, although he apparently rejected fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of a personal God and of life beyond physical death. His religiosity was grounded on the conviction that there is meaning in the universe. He saw that meaning in the fact that evolution has produced the stupendous diversity of the living world and has progressed from primitive forms of life to mankind. Dobzhansky held that, in man, biological evolution has transcended itself into the realm of self-awareness and culture. He believed that somehow mankind would eventually evolve into higher levels of harmony and creativity."- from this biographical article by his student Francisco Ayala

I wonder why or how Dr. Ayala writes this, when Dr. Dobzhansky wrote famously, "I am both an evolutionist and a creationist." How can Dr. Dobzhansky be a deist and die within the confines of the Russian Orthodox Church? It makes no sense to me. In that same article he wrote this famous quote, he also defends the idea of a personal God.

« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 02:57:12 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

A secular scientist only permits evidence available to our physical senses and our analytic reason, but the Orthodox believer also permits the evidence of Scripture, Tradition and our spiritual or noetic sense and reason.

Are there other areas in which scripture or tradition reveal scientific truths? Mathematics? Chemistry? Thermodynamics? Other? No, these revealed truths seem completely restricted to evolution, as far as I can tell. If your hypothesis is true, why would this be?

Quote

I know you must think I'm an imbecile, but I have to say I don't appreciate being talked down to as if I were.

Not at all, but I do apologize if I ever sounded that way. I feel quite free to critique or comment on expressed ideas, of course. What else is a discussion forum for? You won't see any ad hominem in my posts. That being said, this is a comon creationist response, as well -- when your statements are challenged, you reply with claims of "you're attacking me, or my faith, or my..." There's no need for any of us to defend ourselves here. There is the need to support our ideas and conclusions.

I'm asking some very simple, easy questions. Either you are dodging them or you simply don't understand them.

No, you are asking some interesting philosophical and rhetorical questions -- they are just not the kinds of questions that science has any desire to answer.

Yet it depends on how you answer them that determines what "science" is or whether there can be any science at all. Those are your presuppositions which you say don't exist. If you can't examine the presuppositions then any claim to the truth of your science is empty.

One does not need to know the presupposition of science to realize that it works and benefits mankind.

In other words, the ends justify the means. Good thinking- have you tried black magic? I've heard it can do wonders for your lovelife and bank account. As for the benefits of "science", I wonder how nuclear weapons or chemical spills are benefiting mankind. Nevermind that. You're right, materially we are very well off (well, some of us are) thanks to new technologies. If material well-being were the criterion of truth, then modern science would be my religion.

But the purpose of true natural philosophy is not making us live longer or creating neat gadgets (as much as I like these things)- like all wisdom, its purpose is to lift us up to the contemplation of heavenly realities and the glorification of God.

As St. Nikolai said: "'... whoever reads the natural without knowing the spiritual content and significance of what he has read, reads death, sees death, appropriates death." No wonder we arrived at this miserable, death-based theory of evolution by natural selection.

What leads you to conclude that materialism is "objective" or "honest"? Are you an Epicurean? A Deist?

Objective in the sense that it is mind-independant. Honest in the sense that it is based on unbiased observation, based solely on physical evidence. Supernatural phenomena is not directly observable, and certainly not repeatable (on demand) and therefore cannot be evaluated objectively. I would argue that the only way objective truth can be demonstrated requires observable, repeatable qualities; neither of which the supernatural possess. I do not conclude that all of reality is the material world, but I say this subjectively and would be unable to prove this to someone if asked.

Quote

How could that be construed as bad or wrong, in the eyes of the Creator, or others? Scientists seek to objectively understand the world around us, and make it a better place for everyone, using the tools they have available to them; nature, and objective inquiry.

God gave us other tools as well, which your natural philosophy as a rule excludes from its methodology. Suppose someone wanted to play a symphony, but decided to remove all the parts for wind instruments. Would this be an "honest, objective" way to represent the composer's work? Sure, some parts will be alright, especially those parts that rely mainly on other types of instruments. Depending on the piece, the uninformed listener might still think he's hearing a coherent and complete composition. Nevertheless, the overall presentation of the music is misleading and distorted. But you would say "who cares what the composer intended? It still sounded nice."

I'm having difficulty following the analogy. All the parts are observable, so removing some and representing it as complete would be dishonest, yes. I'm not saying all there is to life is the observable, because I believe humans are spiritual beings by nature. But, the only method we have at our disposal to explain the natural world by which we can come to universal agreement based on the evidence alone is via the scientific method and the tools of science.

Quote

Unfortunately for many people, the type of natural philosophy which you speak of tends to be be very subjective

And there is your basic prejudice- if it's not apparent to the five senses or quantifiable mathematically, it must be "subjective." And yet we continually operate as if some of these "subjective" phenomena are very objective indeed.

If it's not observable, it may or may not exist, but we have no tools at our disposal to prove to someone else that it does or doesn't.

Quote

What is the criteria for true and false natural philosophy which seeks to draw us nearer to God?

For starters, we might ask, does it conform with and illuminate the rest of revelation for us?

I assume you are referring to Christian revelation here, however many people have been revealed many things from many different religious backgrounds, yet they will all swear they are true. There is no universal criteria by which to judge which revelations are valid or not; if there was, everyone would all be the same religion because it would be obvious which is correct and which isn't.

Quote

Different methods appear to work for different people. Until the distinctive criteria is defined which separates true from false, which separates good from bad,

Thankfully the Church has done that for us. No, not everyone accepts the Church or its Tradition, but that does not make it less true.

For me and for you, it's true. That's because we have experienced it. I cannot discount experiences of other people offhandedly however, because I realize that they may feel as sincerely as you or I do about my faith, and I have no way to prove to them I'm right and they're wrong (I'm sure you are more sincere about your faith than I, as I am a fledgling Christian at best).

I'm asking some very simple, easy questions. Either you are dodging them or you simply don't understand them.

No, you are asking some interesting philosophical and rhetorical questions -- they are just not the kinds of questions that science has any desire to answer.

Yet it depends on how you answer them that determines what "science" is or whether there can be any science at all. Those are your presuppositions which you say don't exist. If you can't examine the presuppositions then any claim to the truth of your science is empty.

One does not need to know the presupposition of science to realize that it works and benefits mankind.

In other words, the ends justify the means. Good thinking- have you tried black magic? I've heard it can do wonders for your lovelife and bank account. As for the benefits of "science", I wonder how nuclear weapons or chemical spills are benefiting mankind. Nevermind that. You're right, materially we are very well off (well, some of us are) thanks to new technologies. If material well-being were the criterion of truth, then modern science would be my religion.

But the purpose of true natural philosophy is not making us live longer or creating neat gadgets (as much as I like these things)- like all wisdom, its purpose is to lift us up to the contemplation of heavenly realities and the glorification of God.

As St. Nikolai said: "'... whoever reads the natural without knowing the spiritual content and significance of what he has read, reads death, sees death, appropriates death." No wonder we arrived at this miserable, death-based theory of evolution by natural selection.

What is the means in this case, except for honest, objective inquiry? How could that be construed as bad or wrong, in the eyes of the Creator, or others? Scientists seek to objectively understand the world around us, and make it a better place for everyone, using the tools they have available to them; nature, and objective inquiry.

Unfortunately for many people, the type of natural philosophy which you speak of tends to be be very subjective and lead a person down a completely different path than one who is sitting next to them pursuing the same type of 'truth'. What is the criteria for true and false natural philosophy which seeks to draw us nearer to God? Different methods appear to work for different people. Until the distinctive criteria is defined which separates true from false, which separates good from bad, people will continue to forge their own paths seeking the divine, and there will be no ultimate resolution towards spiritual truth for humanity as a whole.

Yet, this 'death based theory' may end up saving many lives because of it.

could you cite one example of a life that has been saved by the theory that his or her great-ancestor was a blob of goo? does the person have to give intellectual assent to this story in order for its healing powers to work?

Do you have to know how your internet works in order to benefit from it? I don't think so, but the fact that someone did in fact know how it works is the reason why we have it today.

The adaptive evolution of bacteria, viruses, other microbes and parasites plays a central role in medicine since this process is needed to understand issues such as antibiotic resistance,[9] pathogen virulence.[10] and pathogen subversion of the immune system.[11]

so youre saying we wouldnt be able to make medicinal advances if we didnt teach people that we are related to apes? im failing to see how the theory of common descent is necessary for scientists to understand how medicines work today. (couldnt they figure that out by observing/testing stuff ....?)

Darwin's idea that every living organism shares a common ancestor is the breakthrough that led to the development of the modern field of evolutionary biology/medicine as it exists today. Scientists do not need to sit around and ponder the fact that every living organism is related, it is a foregone conclusion that has been established long ago; however it is the basis for understanding evolutionary biology/medicine. It's like trying to learn basketball without knowing how to run. It is the basis for further understanding and development. Again, if you want to see how common descent is useful/relevant to the understanding of modern medicine, please read my above posts.

Darwin's idea that every living organism shares a common ancestor was developed through the observations that he made of his present world, correct? so it seems to me that it is these, and later observations, experiments, etc that are allowing us to advance in medicine, and not the theories about the past that are also derived from those same observations. science could easily advance based on the observations it makes without having to project those observations into the past. so im still unclear about what the actual purpose of the theory of common descent is, other than as a trivial pursuit, or to replace the traditional understanding of history.

for instance, are you saying that a scientist who rejects the theory of common descent, and simply considers what his observations and experiments are telling him about our present time, is unable to make medicinal advances?

Mina, I know there is much in your post to think about, and thank you for providing so many Patristic sources, but there is one thing that stood out to me -- when you said that because St. Gregory the Theologian says the trees are contemplation he therefore did not believe they were literal trees. I disagree with that. Fr. Seraphim writes:

Quote

St. Gregory the Theologian, noted for his profound mystical interpretations of Scripture, says of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: "This tree was, according to my view, Contemplation, upon which it is only safe for those who have reached maturity of habit to enter." Does this mean that he regarded this tree as only a symbol, and not also a literal tree? In his own writings he apparently does not give an answer to this question, but another great Holy Father does (for when they are teaching Orthodox doctrine and not just giving private opinions, all the great Fathers agree with each other and even help to interpret each other). St. Gregory Palamas, the fourteenth-century hesychast Father, comments on this passage:

Quote

Gregory the Theologian has called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil "contemplation" ... but it does not follow that what is involved is an illusion or a symbol without existence of its own. For the divine Maximus (the Confessor) also makes Moses the symbol of judgment, and Elijah the symbol of foresight! Are they too then supposed not to have really existed, but to have been invented "symbolically"?

Mina, I know there is much in your post to think about, and thank you for providing so many Patristic sources, but there is one thing that stood out to me -- when you said that because St. Gregory the Theologian says the trees are contemplation he therefore did not believe they were literal trees. I disagree with that. Fr. Seraphim writes:

Quote

St. Gregory the Theologian, noted for his profound mystical interpretations of Scripture, says of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: "This tree was, according to my view, Contemplation, upon which it is only safe for those who have reached maturity of habit to enter." Does this mean that he regarded this tree as only a symbol, and not also a literal tree? In his own writings he apparently does not give an answer to this question, but another great Holy Father does (for when they are teaching Orthodox doctrine and not just giving private opinions, all the great Fathers agree with each other and even help to interpret each other). St. Gregory Palamas, the fourteenth-century hesychast Father, comments on this passage:

Quote

Gregory the Theologian has called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil "contemplation" ... but it does not follow that what is involved is an illusion or a symbol without existence of its own. For the divine Maximus (the Confessor) also makes Moses the symbol of judgment, and Elijah the symbol of foresight! Are they too then supposed not to have really existed, but to have been invented "symbolically"?

Thank you for that. However, I'm not sure why St. Gregory Palamas would say that concerning a tree that befits the Divine Nature. Even the Tree of Life itself is not a tree, but the contemplation of the Divine grace and assurance of immortality. In addition, St. Gregory Nazienzen compiled a list of writings by Origen called the "Philocalia," which also teaches the same exact thing in much more clearer language. Therefore, it seems consistent based on the fact that St. Gregory handpicked this particular passage of Origen to be included for learning the interpretation of Scriptures that it seems more likely that St. Gregory believed it to be allegorical. You cannot compare a tree to Moses or Elijah the prophets. I understand St. Palamas is a big Church father in your Church, but one only wonders that St. Palamas probably did not have the Philocalia in hand to really assess the true thought of St. Gregory Nazienzen.

In addition, we have a liturgy in the Coptic Church we ascribe to St. Gregory Nazienzen, and we also have one for St. Basil, the other compiler of the Philocalia of Origen. This is a past message I also wrote:

Is it possible that Adam and Eve represent the appearance of consciousness and then language in the evolutionary line? Could the icon that is painted for us in Genesis be an acknowledgement of our basic psychology that has set us apart from other creatures? Isn't Ego(I) necessary for a person to separate theirself from others, give names to lower beings (animal) and even introduce the possibility for falsely and wrongly seeing themselves as God(I am)? It seems in ancient history that the appearance of the written word comes on the global scene quite suddenly.

Maximos the Confessor is an example of a father who sees Genesis as a psychological model in that he refers to himself as Adam, by referring Adam as I:The Adam and Eve story may be a particular man's recognition of consciousness in himself and family. It's possible that all people today derived from this family who passed down orally their awakening of consciousness and discovery of reason, language that was only latently possible in their ancestors. Perhaps the fall is a product of devolution.

"Are we not men? we are D E V O"

In the Coptic Gregorian liturgy, the priest prays as if he was Adam and goes through the whole Genesis story, "You formed me out of non-existence, You set up the sky for me...made the earth firm...bridled the sea...revealed the nature of animals...subdued everything under my feet...wrote within me the Image of Your authority...You opened for me the Paradise, for my delight. You gave me the learning of Your knowledge. You revealed to me the Tree of Life and made known to me the thorn of death. One plant there was, of which you said to me "From this only do not eat." I ate of my own free will. I laid aside your law by my own opinion. I neglected your commandments. I brought upon myself the sentence of death."

The Coptic Basilian liturgy does the same in a much shorter rendition, but of which I will quote in full:

"Holy, Holy, Holy, truly O Lord, our God, Who formed us, created us and placed us in the paradise of joy. When we disobeyed Your commandment by the guile of the serpent, we fell from eternal life, and were exiled from the Paradise of joy. You have not abandoned us to the end, but have always visited us through Your holy prophets, and in the last days, You did manifest Yourself to us, who were sitting in darkness and the shadow of death, through Your Only-Begotten Son, our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, Who of The Holy Spirit and of the Holy Virgin Mary."

Makes one think I suppose. Still this doesn't leave room to understand a certain literal component that the Holy Fathers seemed to have stuck to.

God bless.

If I personally also ate of the Tree of Knowledge as my father Adam did, and I plucked for myself the sentence of death out of the fruit of the Tree that I am not ready for, but against God's will, then I have to ask the tradition of which we have received these ancient liturgies from. When did I pluck the fruit out of a literal tree for myself?

Perhaps, you will find St. Basil talking about the Tree in a literal form that he personally believed. But judging by the fact that they both compiled the Philocalia and left us these beautiful traditions, I don't see how they will consider it heretical for someone not to believe in the literal Tree? What do we call this heresy? Docetatreeism? Or what about other heresies that seems to put my soul in trouble? The heresy of not believing that the sun was created only after plantations were growing? The heresy of heresy of not believing in a young earth at the very least?

Let us be practical. We are misusing the Church fathers. The Church fathers taught us the perfect doctrines and dogmas that no science can change that are necessary for our salvation. I don't think it's necessary for your salvation to know exactly the mechanics of geological creation or the physiology of Christ's miracle of the man born blind.

« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 04:01:51 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Father Nicanor Austriaco, a biologist and Dominican who has his own lab at Providence College, published a paper in 2003 called In Defense of Double Agency in Evolution: A Response to Five Modern Critics (not available online, alas) in the Rome-based Catholic journal, Angelicum, showing just how comprehensively evolution can be accommodated in a true Catholic philosophical and theological tradition.

For Austriaco, the tradition is clear. "When double agency is cast within the classical framework of Western theism especially as it was articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas," he wrote, "it remains a coherent and fruitful theological explanation for divine action in an evolving world." No watchmaker in the sky is required in the simplistic sense that ID proponents insist is the only explanation standing ... between Christian children and certain atheism.

"When we talk about evolution," Austriaco told me in a recent interview, "most people think that to affirm that evolution is a contingent process, is to necessarily exclude divine providence." But this is simply not the case, he argues. "The irony about the intelligent design debate today, is that the intelligent design proponents, like the Darwinists, presuppose an opposition between chance and design. They necessitate an opposition between chance and design. If it's design, it cannot be chance. If it's chance, it cannot be design. There is no option -- and there are philosophical reasons why the moderns can't come up with this -- there is no option, no one thinks about the possibility of talking about God's design working through chance, through contingency."

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I must add this to the discussion. It is an attempt by a traditionalist Orthodox bishop, the late Bishop Alexander Mileant (ROCOR, died 2005), to harmonize the Bible with evolution. He does a nice job at it. Although I am a bit more skeptical of his use, at the very least, this was an excellent article that was pivotal to my understanding of the harmonizing Christian faith with science. It is filled with Church fathers that might interest some here:

I'm asking some very simple, easy questions. Either you are dodging them or you simply don't understand them.

No, you are asking some interesting philosophical and rhetorical questions -- they are just not the kinds of questions that science has any desire to answer.

Yet it depends on how you answer them that determines what "science" is or whether there can be any science at all. Those are your presuppositions which you say don't exist. If you can't examine the presuppositions then any claim to the truth of your science is empty.

One does not need to know the presupposition of science to realize that it works and benefits mankind.

In other words, the ends justify the means. Good thinking- have you tried black magic? I've heard it can do wonders for your lovelife and bank account. As for the benefits of "science", I wonder how nuclear weapons or chemical spills are benefiting mankind. Nevermind that. You're right, materially we are very well off (well, some of us are) thanks to new technologies. If material well-being were the criterion of truth, then modern science would be my religion.

But the purpose of true natural philosophy is not making us live longer or creating neat gadgets (as much as I like these things)- like all wisdom, its purpose is to lift us up to the contemplation of heavenly realities and the glorification of God.

As St. Nikolai said: "'... whoever reads the natural without knowing the spiritual content and significance of what he has read, reads death, sees death, appropriates death." No wonder we arrived at this miserable, death-based theory of evolution by natural selection.

What is the means in this case, except for honest, objective inquiry? How could that be construed as bad or wrong, in the eyes of the Creator, or others? Scientists seek to objectively understand the world around us, and make it a better place for everyone, using the tools they have available to them; nature, and objective inquiry.

Unfortunately for many people, the type of natural philosophy which you speak of tends to be be very subjective and lead a person down a completely different path than one who is sitting next to them pursuing the same type of 'truth'. What is the criteria for true and false natural philosophy which seeks to draw us nearer to God? Different methods appear to work for different people. Until the distinctive criteria is defined which separates true from false, which separates good from bad, people will continue to forge their own paths seeking the divine, and there will be no ultimate resolution towards spiritual truth for humanity as a whole.

Yet, this 'death based theory' may end up saving many lives because of it.

could you cite one example of a life that has been saved by the theory that his or her great-ancestor was a blob of goo? does the person have to give intellectual assent to this story in order for its healing powers to work?

Do you have to know how your internet works in order to benefit from it? I don't think so, but the fact that someone did in fact know how it works is the reason why we have it today.

The adaptive evolution of bacteria, viruses, other microbes and parasites plays a central role in medicine since this process is needed to understand issues such as antibiotic resistance,[9] pathogen virulence.[10] and pathogen subversion of the immune system.[11]

so youre saying we wouldnt be able to make medicinal advances if we didnt teach people that we are related to apes? im failing to see how the theory of common descent is necessary for scientists to understand how medicines work today. (couldnt they figure that out by observing/testing stuff ....?)

Darwin's idea that every living organism shares a common ancestor is the breakthrough that led to the development of the modern field of evolutionary biology/medicine as it exists today. Scientists do not need to sit around and ponder the fact that every living organism is related, it is a foregone conclusion that has been established long ago; however it is the basis for understanding evolutionary biology/medicine. It's like trying to learn basketball without knowing how to run. It is the basis for further understanding and development. Again, if you want to see how common descent is useful/relevant to the understanding of modern medicine, please read my above posts.

Darwin's idea that every living organism shares a common ancestor was developed through the observations that he made of his present world, correct? so it seems to me that it is these, and later observations, experiments, etc that are allowing us to advance in medicine, and not the theories about the past that are also derived from those same observations. science could easily advance based on the observations it makes without having to project those observations into the past. so im still unclear about what the actual purpose of the theory of common descent is, other than as a trivial pursuit, or to replace the traditional understanding of history.

for instance, are you saying that a scientist who rejects the theory of common descent, and simply considers what his observations and experiments are telling him about our present time, is unable to make medicinal advances?

If you can't describe the past, how can you predict the future? As stated before, nothing in biology really makes sense without assuming common descent. It is the backbone which holds the entire discipline together. If you conduct your own tests/studies, they will all bring you back to the same conclusion: that every animal on the planet shares a common ancestor with one another. Nevertheless, I will give you a specific example of how common descent aids research:

Atavisms.

"An atavism is an evolutionary throwback, such as traits reappearing which had disappeared generations ago.[27] Atavisms occur because genes for previously existing phenotypical features are often preserved in DNA, even though the genes are not expressed in some or most of the organisms possessing them.[28] Some examples of this are hind-legged snakes or whales;[27][29][30] the extra toes of ungulates that do not even reach the ground,[31] chicken's teeth,[32] reemergence of sexual reproduction in Hieracium pilosella and Crotoniidae;[33] and humans with tails,[27] extra nipples,[29] and large canine teeth.[29]"

So if we didn't assume common ancestry in this case, we would not expect genes for teeth to show up in the chicken DNA, nor would we expect humans to have genes for making a tail. We might just assume it was a 'freak' mutation, without any correlation to the animals/persons past. However, if we assume common ancestry, we see that the DNA shows a rich history of the animals evolutionary past. You can pinpoint genes turned off which used to be functional (e.g. tails in humans, teeth in chickens) and you can even correlate the same mutations across genomes among different species (e.g. humans and chimps). Likewise, we can determine why and how such genes were deactivated, and apply this same concept to genes that affect the expression of inherited diseases.

What leads you to conclude that materialism is "objective" or "honest"? Are you an Epicurean? A Deist?

Objective in the sense that it is mind-independant.

Such a claim is as absurd as "science without presuppositions." Like all philosophies, the philosophy of materialism is the product of minds and can only be exercised by minds. There is no objectively existing materialistic world where everything can be explained entirely by natural causes- this is a fiction invented by human beings, even if it can be a useful one.

Quote

Honest in the sense that it is based on unbiased observation, based solely on physical evidence.

Which is a bias.

Quote

Supernatural phenomena is not directly observable

First of all, even materialist science does not operate purely on direct observation, but depends on inference and deduction as well. Second, every visible thing is penetrated with spiritual phenomena, which can indeed be observed or inferred, even to an extent by those of us with a darkened nous. And the saints achieve a direct vision of God himself. "The heavens are telling the glory of God." If someone fails to perceive it because it does not meet his preconceived empiricist criteria, that is indicative of his prejudice, his bias, and his blindness- not the subjectivity of spiritual reality.

Quote

I would argue that the only way objective truth can be demonstrated requires observable, repeatable qualities; neither of which the supernatural possess. I do not conclude that all of reality is the material world, but I say this subjectively and would be unable to prove this to someone if asked.

So spiritual reality is subjective. The only basis for objectivity is materialism. Someone who believes this should ask himself what his real religion is.

Quote

I'm having difficulty following the analogy. All the parts are observable, so removing some and representing it as complete would be dishonest, yes.

Since all the parts are interdependent, a reductionist approach is not only bad for understanding the whole, but the parts as well.

Quote

But, the only method we have at our disposal to explain the natural world by which we can come to universal agreement based on the evidence alone is via the scientific method and the tools of science.

What "universal agreement"? Who are we trying to impress here?

Quote

If it's not observable, it may or may not exist, but we have no tools at our disposal to prove to someone else that it does or doesn't.

Quote

I assume you are referring to Christian revelation here, however many people have been revealed many things from many different religious backgrounds, yet they will all swear they are true. There is no universal criteria by which to judge which revelations are valid or not; if there was, everyone would all be the same religion because it would be obvious which is correct and which isn't.

Adam in the garden communed with God constantly and enjoyed a state of indescribable blessedness, yet he still chose to follow a lie. The Truth does not constrain, but invites.

Quote

For me and for you, it's true. That's because we have experienced it. I cannot discount experiences of other people offhandedly however, because I realize that they may feel as sincerely as you or I do about my faith, and I have no way to prove to them I'm right and they're wrong

Well, you certainly won't be able to prove the truth of Christ by the standards of the world. And that is by the world's design.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Really? Do you think this about all sciences? Physicists describe matter as being composed of elctrons, protons, and neutrons. But physics makes no mention of the Creator. You therefore consider physics to be a false science?

The science of optics describes light passing through particular substances as breaking down into its component colors. It makes no mention of the Creator. Therefore, what we understand about optics is false?

The science of number theory defines perfect numbers as those that are the sum of their proper factors. (e.g. 6 = 1+2+3 = 1*2*3) It makes no mention of the Creator. Therefore, number theory is false? Is all of mathematics false?

Iconodule, I feel like we're going going back and forth in our current arguments without making much progress towards a mutual understanding. Perhaps I can present a new question. How much certainty/evidence/confidence do you think is required for a scientific theory to be considered reliable or trustworthy?

For example, lets consider bridge building. Humans have been building bridges for a long time. A properly educated engineer should be able to design a bridge that is reliable for virtually any application. Different bridges all across the world obey the same laws of structural mechanics, and therefore have a similar architecture. When we see a new bridge built across a large body of water (for example, the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway in New Orleans, LA) We don't hesitate to drive over it because we have confidence in the engineers, the builders, and most importantly for this discussion, the science behind bridge-building. It has been shown time and again that bridges can be designed and constructed for specific applications and they perform reliably for these applications.

My question is, what level of confidence is required in order for us to trust a particular scientific theory or law? Certainly we can't say that all science is unreliable or untrustworthy. If that were the case, then we would be too skeptical to venture onto that bridge. Yet we do. Perhaps we don't know everything there is to know yet about bridge-building, yet we know enough to consistently build a bridge that 'does the job'. In the same way, perhaps we don't know everything there is to know about biological evolution, yet we know enough to draw reliable conclusions about animal ancestry, which proves to be accurate time and time again by independant scientists performing different experiments operating within different labs all around the world. What then, in your mind, is the key distinction between something like the structural mechanics of bridge building, and evolutionary biology?

Evolutionary creation claims that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained, sustained, and design-reflecting evolutionary process. This view of origins fully embraces both the religious beliefs of biblical Christianity and the scientific theories of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution. It contends that the Creator established and maintains the laws of nature, including the mechanisms of a teleological evolution. In other words, evolution is a planned and purpose driven natural process. This position also argues that humans evolved from pre-human ancestors, and over a period of time the Image of God and human sin were gradually and mysteriously manifested. Evolutionary creationists experience the Father’s love and presence in their lives. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, they drink deeply from the Bible and enjoy an everlasting source of spiritual nourishment for their soul. And these Christian evolutionists meet the Lord Jesus in a personal relationship, which at times involves both dramatic and subtle answers to prayer as well as miraculous signs and wonders....

___________

Sounds compatible with Orthodoxy.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2010, 11:02:44 AM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Evolutionary creation claims that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained, sustained, and design-reflecting evolutionary process. This view of origins fully embraces both the religious beliefs of biblical Christianity and the scientific theories of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution. It contends that the Creator established and maintains the laws of nature, including the mechanisms of a teleological evolution. In other words, evolution is a planned and purpose driven natural process. This position also argues that humans evolved from pre-human ancestors, and over a period of time the Image of God and human sin were gradually and mysteriously manifested. Evolutionary creationists experience the Father’s love and presence in their lives. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, they drink deeply from the Bible and enjoy an everlasting source of spiritual nourishment for their soul. And these Christian evolutionists meet the Lord Jesus in a personal relationship, which at times involves both dramatic and subtle answers to prayer as well as miraculous signs and wonders....

The problem with science is that it's moving further and further in the direction of incompatibility with Orthodox dogma. Even if we grant for argument's sake that the Genesis account of the origin of the world and of humanity can be understood in a purely allegorical fashion (although I believe this goes against the consensus of the Fathers), we still have to believe that: the soul is specially created and not the product of evolution; and that the physical laws of the universe as a whole were specially designed and created by God. However, evolutionary psychology certainly holds to the theory that our mind, i.e. our soul, is entirely the product of evolution. You can choose to reject this, but on what scientific grounds? What is the rival scientific theory for the origins of our mind? Steven Pinker recently wrote a book on this called the "Blank Slate". He is arguing against the model of the human mind assumed by most social scientists, which holds that mind is largely the product of environment and cultural influences. These social scientists, by the way, do not reject evolution as a whole, they just refuse to acknowledge evolution's implications for the human mind, and the possible differences in mental faculties that you would thus expect between different human populations (divided by sex, race, etc). The debate is strongly colored by political ideology, but it is pretty clear that the trend is for Darwinism to win out in psychology as well as biology. As far as psychological science is concerned, the weight of evidence is against the standard social science model. Ironically, this scientific victory over leftist ideology is also a victory over traditional Christian dogma about the specially created, immortal human soul.

How about the phyiscal laws of the universe? Surely they must be the product of design, and if so, we can't escape the conclusion that the universe has been "designed" just for us? Not so fast, according to an increasing number of physicists. In physics the theory of multiple universes is fast gaining ground, as well as the theory of an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction of space-time. Multiple universes, an idea made popular by Richard Feynman, is simply one theoretically consistent way of interpreting the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: since the position or velocity of a particle can only be estimated probabilistically at any one time, this could either mean that some supernatural force is determining it without our knowledge, or that all possible positions or velocities are being realized across an infinite number of parallel universes. Roger Penrose of Oxford University, meanwhile, believes he has found evidence that matter existed before the big bang, in the form of concentric circles of particularly even radiation patterns that can be observed in the cosmic microwave background. According to him, these must be due to gravitational waves produced by colliding black holes, a phenomenon predicted only for an aging universe, which must have preceded our own.

These are all legitimate scientific developments, judging by science's own standards of legitimacy. Are we just going to accept all of them because the "experts" say so? If so, where does that leave our faith? There are an infinite number of parallel universes. This means there is nothing probabilistically astounding about the physical laws of our own universe. No doubt, if you took a random sample of universes, the majority would not produce any life, since the physical constants would have evolved in such a way as to render the evolution of life impossible. But given an infinite number, a universe with life is bound to appear. As if that weren't bad enough, our own souls are nothing more than highly complex but nevertheless entirely evolved neural networks, qualitatively no different from the nervous systems of any other species. Free will, morality and so forth are simply psychological illusions from an introspective point of view; empirically, science holds them to be epiphenomena, acquired by some learning process, of deeper, evolved psychological phenomena.

Where do we draw the line? Do we not at some point have to say that it doesn't matter what these clever scientists say: our faith teaches so and so and there we stand? And if we have to tell science "Stop!" at this point, why not at an earlier point? Why don't we allow the Tradition of the Church to guide us to the right place to "draw the line"? It is for that reason that I find it hard to accept biological evolution.

The problem with science is that it's moving further and further in the direction of incompatibility with Orthodox dogma. Even if we grant for argument's sake that the Genesis account of the origin of the world and of humanity can be understood in a purely allegorical fashion (although I believe this goes against the consensus of the Fathers), we still have to believe that: the soul is specially created and not the product of evolution; and that the physical laws of the universe as a whole were specially designed and created by God. However, evolutionary psychology certainly holds to the theory that our mind, i.e. our soul, is entirely the product of evolution. You can choose to reject this, but on what scientific grounds? What is the rival scientific theory for the origins of our mind? Steven Pinker recently wrote a book on this called the "Blank Slate". He is arguing against the model of the human mind assumed by most social scientists, which holds that mind is largely the product of environment and cultural influences. These social scientists, by the way, do not reject evolution as a whole, they just refuse to acknowledge evolution's implications for the human mind, and the possible differences in mental faculties that you would thus expect between different human populations (divided by sex, race, etc). The debate is strongly colored by political ideology, but it is pretty clear that the trend is for Darwinism to win out in psychology as well as biology. As far as psychological science is concerned, the weight of evidence is against the standard social science model. Ironically, this scientific victory over leftist ideology is also a victory over traditional Christian dogma about the specially created, immortal human soul.

How about the phyiscal laws of the universe? Surely they must be the product of design, and if so, we can't escape the conclusion that the universe has been "designed" just for us? Not so fast, according to an increasing number of physicists. In physics the theory of multiple universes is fast gaining ground, as well as the theory of an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction of space-time. Multiple universes, an idea made popular by Richard Feynman, is simply one theoretically consistent way of interpreting the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: since the position or velocity of a particle can only be estimated probabilistically at any one time, this could either mean that some supernatural force is determining it without our knowledge, or that all possible positions or velocities are being realized across an infinite number of parallel universes. Roger Penrose of Oxford University, meanwhile, believes he has found evidence that matter existed before the big bang, in the form of concentric circles of particularly even radiation patterns that can be observed in the cosmic microwave background. According to him, these must be due to gravitational waves produced by colliding black holes, a phenomenon predicted only for an aging universe, which must have preceded our own.

These are all legitimate scientific developments, judging by science's own standards of legitimacy. Are we just going to accept all of them because the "experts" say so? If so, where does that leave our faith? There are an infinite number of parallel universes. This means there is nothing probabilistically astounding about the physical laws of our own universe. No doubt, if you took a random sample of universes, the majority would not produce any life, since the physical constants would have evolved in such a way as to render the evolution of life impossible. But given an infinite number, a universe with life is bound to appear. As if that weren't bad enough, our own souls are nothing more than highly complex but nevertheless entirely evolved neural networks, qualitatively no different from the nervous systems of any other species. Free will, morality and so forth are simply psychological illusions from an introspective point of view; empirically, science holds them to be epiphenomena, acquired by some learning process, of deeper, evolved psychological phenomena.

Where do we draw the line? Do we not at some point have to say that it doesn't matter what these clever scientists say: our faith teaches so and so and there we stand? And if we have to tell science "Stop!" at this point, why not at an earlier point? Why don't we allow the Tradition of the Church to guide us to the right place to "draw the line"? It is for that reason that I find it hard to accept biological evolution.

The theory of Multiple-Universes has been discussed here before.

The conclusion one makes can easily be in support of the Christian World View just as much as for the secular.

For example, extra dimensional worlds lends credence to the existence of an after-life and what Christians have called Angles and Demons etc.In other words, there is far more to existence than just our own local "Reality" as Science is just beginning to understand. It is catching up with Religion, not disproving it.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Evolution is an absolutely phenomenal wonder of God's creation. Those who deny it are denying him part of his glory.

death is not a part of God's creation, nor is it phenomenal. Interestingly, several Fathers teach that to say that God took a long time in creation is to rob Him of His glory, as if He was incapable of creating quickly. So thats just another way that evolution comes into direct contrast with the Fathers.